heretical- a person believing in or practicing religious heresy
faggot- a bunch of sticks
Eucharist- the Christian ceremony commemorating the Last Supper, in which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed
abstain- restraining from doing or enjoying something
penance- a punishment which is volunteered
beseeching- implore
source- an origin of something
1. In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Convicted for heretical beliefs, Hogsflesh is punished by the church authorities. Not only was he forced to wear only a shirt, shoes, and a strip of linen around his waist, but he had to carry a faggot - a bundle of sticks. Also, the church authorities made him make a speech saying that he has done wrong and he should not be an example of any of his misdoing. The main point of this article is pointing out the many roles a historian has and that not all historians are the same.Every historian has his/her own style and different way of interpreting gathered information. But a historian is required to have the two roles: being a storyteller and a synthesizer.
2. What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles?
Arnold defines the roles of a historian by an interpreter, detective, analyst, synthesizer, and a storyteller. I do agree with Arnold's assumptions because a historian needs to first read the source gathered, then find the true meaning of the text, looking dispassionately at the evidence and presenting one’s findings, saying something about what the historical documents mean, bringing a variety of evidence, and finally making a synthesis available to a wider audience. I agree because all these specific steps are required in order to truly find the core meaning and idea of the found text before making it public. Other roles a historian may have is sharing their ideas and thoughts with other historians and trying to fit the bits and pieces of information found on both sides to create a larger bubble in which might help in finding the meaning.
3. What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?
From the quote, "treating their sources with fidelity", the word fidelity is the most eye-catching. Fidelity is the faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated
by continuing loyalty and support. The quote is saying not giving invalid information that is not from the source, but being truthful about it and having evidence to prove that it is true. It is important to remember this when reading historical references because not all historical references may be 100% true. Some might have small bits of flaws and some might be precise, but no one is there to point out what is and right and wrong.
4. How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
A single event can be interpreted in more than one way by the different perspectives each individual might view the event as. As an illustration, cross country running can be interpreted with differing points of view. People who do not run in the cross-country team might think that running is an easy sport and an easy sport to play in for gaining an "after-school activity credit for college". Viewing from me, a runner on the cross-country team, has the opposite point of view. In middle school, I tried out most of the sports: cross-country, swimming, volleyball, and basketball and believe that cross-country is the most difficult sport of all. Not only does one need the mental ability of pushing themselves to keep running, but pacing is also a very hard job.
5. Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
When I was 4, and my sister was 8, we were running around the house, playing tag. Suddenly, a large sculpture in our house fell to the floor and crashed. Even then, we tried blaming the incident to one another so that we wouldn't get punished. I remembered the incident as when my sister was tagging me, she hit the sculpture with her arm and knocked it off the table. But my sister remembers the incident as her reaching for me, but me knocking the sculpture with my shoulder. It is not possible for a historian to be completely objective because it is natural for people to take a stronger stance on one side of the story, and sometimes not looking in all perspectives. Just like me and my sister standing on each edge of the two perspectives of the story, historians may lead to one side or another.
6. What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
When historians practice subject history, the history can never be accurate and may even lead to a wrong hypothesis. Also, the information historians give out when practicing subject history could become his/her individual perspective. Subject history can be beneficial to the study of history by having different opinions and a diverse amount of thoughts on the same subject. This explains why my sister and I had different ways of remembering the event because we both wanted to believe that each of us were right and had a different viewing point from the incident. This tells us that history is just the same; many people can view the same event differently and have contrasting viewing points.
7. Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
Every historian is "a storyteller" because he/she has to make a synthesis available to a wider audience whether through writing, the radio, or tv and has to bring it to the public, in other words, final production. If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, it is true that we cannot believe everything each historian says is true, but if there is a reasonable evidence and supporting ideas to hold up the historians' assumption, then there is no reason for us to not trust the historians.
8. How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
My view of history and historians changed greatly after studying the article. I know know that historians can never be completely right due to the different perspectives history can be viewed upon. In the future, I will approach history with a mind of keeping different perspectives and looking from different views on the same event.
Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history?
In order to understand history, understanding culture is vital. Culture consists of three significant portions: artifacts (physical features), mentifacts (think, beliefs, values), and sociofacts (institutions, events). As the common dictionary states, history is the study of past events. Culture contributes a great deal on understanding history due to the changes of culture over time. History is shaped when culture changes and leaves a mark. As an illustration, Korea would be a great example for a change of culture, which builds into history. Before Korea became a wealthy country, it was under poverty and was a very closed country. It did not have any mix of races. After Korea gained its strength and strove in the industry, it grew financially and in popularity wise. More people came about Korea, alternating the culture of Korea. The environment became more modern and the lifestyle completely changed. Now, Korea is one of the most wealthiest countries and takes a fairly big role in the world. The past is the past and is left as history.
What is culture?
Culture is the shared customs in a particular population.
ex)
- the way ppl dress
- language
- food
- home style
- respect for elders
- art
- religion
"Hats of the Historian" Vocab + Q&A
Vocabulary:
1. In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Convicted for heretical beliefs, Hogsflesh is punished by the church authorities. Not only was he forced to wear only a shirt, shoes, and a strip of linen around his waist, but he had to carry a faggot - a bundle of sticks. Also, the church authorities made him make a speech saying that he has done wrong and he should not be an example of any of his misdoing. The main point of this article is pointing out the many roles a historian has and that not all historians are the same.Every historian has his/her own style and different way of interpreting gathered information. But a historian is required to have the two roles: being a storyteller and a synthesizer.
2. What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles?
Arnold defines the roles of a historian by an interpreter, detective, analyst, synthesizer, and a storyteller. I do agree with Arnold's assumptions because a historian needs to first read the source gathered, then find the true meaning of the text, looking dispassionately at the evidence and presenting one’s findings, saying something about what the historical documents mean, bringing a variety of evidence, and finally making a synthesis available to a wider audience. I agree because all these specific steps are required in order to truly find the core meaning and idea of the found text before making it public. Other roles a historian may have is sharing their ideas and thoughts with other historians and trying to fit the bits and pieces of information found on both sides to create a larger bubble in which might help in finding the meaning.
3. What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?
From the quote, "treating their sources with fidelity", the word fidelity is the most eye-catching. Fidelity is the faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated
by continuing loyalty and support. The quote is saying not giving invalid information that is not from the source, but being truthful about it and having evidence to prove that it is true. It is important to remember this when reading historical references because not all historical references may be 100% true. Some might have small bits of flaws and some might be precise, but no one is there to point out what is and right and wrong.
4. How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
A single event can be interpreted in more than one way by the different perspectives each individual might view the event as. As an illustration, cross country running can be interpreted with differing points of view. People who do not run in the cross-country team might think that running is an easy sport and an easy sport to play in for gaining an "after-school activity credit for college". Viewing from me, a runner on the cross-country team, has the opposite point of view. In middle school, I tried out most of the sports: cross-country, swimming, volleyball, and basketball and believe that cross-country is the most difficult sport of all. Not only does one need the mental ability of pushing themselves to keep running, but pacing is also a very hard job.
5. Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
When I was 4, and my sister was 8, we were running around the house, playing tag. Suddenly, a large sculpture in our house fell to the floor and crashed. Even then, we tried blaming the incident to one another so that we wouldn't get punished. I remembered the incident as when my sister was tagging me, she hit the sculpture with her arm and knocked it off the table. But my sister remembers the incident as her reaching for me, but me knocking the sculpture with my shoulder. It is not possible for a historian to be completely objective because it is natural for people to take a stronger stance on one side of the story, and sometimes not looking in all perspectives. Just like me and my sister standing on each edge of the two perspectives of the story, historians may lead to one side or another.
6. What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
When historians practice subject history, the history can never be accurate and may even lead to a wrong hypothesis. Also, the information historians give out when practicing subject history could become his/her individual perspective. Subject history can be beneficial to the study of history by having different opinions and a diverse amount of thoughts on the same subject. This explains why my sister and I had different ways of remembering the event because we both wanted to believe that each of us were right and had a different viewing point from the incident. This tells us that history is just the same; many people can view the same event differently and have contrasting viewing points.
7. Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
Every historian is "a storyteller" because he/she has to make a synthesis available to a wider audience whether through writing, the radio, or tv and has to bring it to the public, in other words, final production. If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, it is true that we cannot believe everything each historian says is true, but if there is a reasonable evidence and supporting ideas to hold up the historians' assumption, then there is no reason for us to not trust the historians.
8. How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
My view of history and historians changed greatly after studying the article. I know know that historians can never be completely right due to the different perspectives history can be viewed upon. In the future, I will approach history with a mind of keeping different perspectives and looking from different views on the same event.
Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history?
In order to understand history, understanding culture is vital. Culture consists of three significant portions: artifacts (physical features), mentifacts (think, beliefs, values), and sociofacts (institutions, events). As the common dictionary states, history is the study of past events. Culture contributes a great deal on understanding history due to the changes of culture over time. History is shaped when culture changes and leaves a mark. As an illustration, Korea would be a great example for a change of culture, which builds into history. Before Korea became a wealthy country, it was under poverty and was a very closed country. It did not have any mix of races. After Korea gained its strength and strove in the industry, it grew financially and in popularity wise. More people came about Korea, alternating the culture of Korea. The environment became more modern and the lifestyle completely changed. Now, Korea is one of the most wealthiest countries and takes a fairly big role in the world. The past is the past and is left as history.
What is culture?
Culture is the shared customs in a particular population.
ex)
- the way ppl dress
- language
- food
- home style
- respect for elders
- art
- religion